187 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Palidane wrote...

Ok, a question to all the pro-mages out there: would you be willing to accept a reformed circle system?

For example, when a young mage is discovered, he is brought to the Circle for training. There's no choice in this, but parents can come and visit him. Templars are not allowed inside the tower without the express permission of the First Enchanter. On the other hand, mages are not allowed outside the tower without the Knight Commander's OK. Young mages get to be educated about their magic and learn to use it wisely. Students can take field trips and go places, they just have to have an escort. If they pass their harrowing and get the First Enchanter and Knight Commander's ok, they can move to wherever they want. They have to check in with the local chantry whenever they're travelling and have to have yearly inspections by local templars, but other than that are free to go about their business.

Would that be acceptable? Maleficars either fail the harrowing or get a Templar hit squad after them, and law abiding mages get to have normal lives. Common people don't have to worry about an abomination coming out of nowhere and burning the village down, and Templars aren't constantly at odds with the mages.

The Templar Order is wiped out. Whatever arises thereafter is wholly divorced from the Chantry. This is non-negotiable. The commander and First Enchanter will both be part of the Circle, in different offices. Blood magic will not be an automatic death sentence, but will require assessment to be allowed to use. The Harrowing will not involve death as a potential penalty. Your "chantry" mention of checking in will be replaced by Mage's Collective-esque way stations.

Beyond that, it's acceptable for the time being. I'll need to read it again, in all likelihood; there may be things I've missed.

[LobselVith8]

almostinsane99 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Anders didn't force anyone to think there was something gravely wrong with the Chantry controlled Circles. 

Flinging a match into a powder keg isn't exactly innocent.

It is one thing to understand why Anders did what he did, but it is another to condone it.

Personally, I want to bring down extremists like Anders, Meredith, and Orsino so the two sides can sit and talk. 

Except people thought the Chantry controlled Circles were wrong before Anders was even born. You can't say that people didn't take issue with or resist the Chantry controlled Circles until Anders. Everyone from Aldenon the Wise to the Mages' Collective set the example before Anders. My Surana Warden did with his aid to the Collective and with the Magi Boon, in my canon run for Origins.

As for Anders' actions, everyone has their own opinion. Many disagree.

The last thing I want to do with my protagonist is talk with the Chantry or the templars. I'd rather facilitate a victory for the mages.

[Renmiri1]

I think "good" mages need to be part of the police force. I don't trust Templars judgement. Wynne, Irving, Anders, mageHawke all battled blood mages and prove mages can be trusted to be part of the order who goes after blood mages.

Also the "recruiting". No mage child should be dragged by Templars. A mage should be present to make sure the kid is not harmed, beaten, etc.. and to help explain to the kid and the family what will the future of the child be.

[Palidane]

Xilizhra wrote...
The Templar Order is wiped out. Whatever arises thereafter is wholly divorced from the Chantry. This is non-negotiable. The commander and First Enchanter will both be part of the Circle, in different offices. Blood magic will not be an automatic death sentence, but will require assessment to be allowed to use. The Harrowing will not involve death as a potential penalty. Your "chantry" mention of checking in will be replaced by Mage's Collective-esque way stations.

Beyond that, it's acceptable for the time being. I'll need to read it again, in all likelihood; there may be things I've missed.

I think that's acceptable, bar two concessions. One, mundane people have positions of authority in the Circle, whether as Templars or at the "Collective-esque" way stations. A Circle of mages run by mages, advised by mages, and policed by mages is a terrible terrible idea.

Two, no blood magic. No way. Absolutely non-negotionable. We are trying to give mages freedom without turning the whole world into Tevinter.

[Xilizhra]

I think that's acceptable, bar two concessions. One, mundane people have positions of authority in the Circle, whether as Templars or at the "Collective-esque" way stations. A Circle of mages run by mages, advised by mages, and policed by mages is a terrible terrible idea.

The sentinels who replace the templars will be... relatively mundane, insofar as one counts as mundane when one commands magic antimagic powers. Not less mundane than the original templars. They're just part of the political (and international) Circle body.

Two, no blood magic. No way. Absolutely non-negotionable. We are trying to give mages freedom without turning the whole world into Tevinter.

This is rather like making nuclear research or research into biowarfare punishable by death. To be sure, there exists great potential for abuse, but also too much knowledge and too many applications (how could we defend against anthrax, for instance, without studying it?) to ban entirely. For example, look at what Quentin could do; preserve life far beyond when it should have died, even at the cost of numerous body parts. Imagine how that could be combined with healing magic, and what dire injuries might be cured. Imagine how much easier healing in general might be if you can control the patient's blood flow. And that's only the beginning.

[Renmiri1]

Palidane wrote...

 A Circle of mages run by mages, advised by mages, and policed by mages is a terrible terrible idea.

Never meant mages would be the only ones in the police force. Meant they have to be part of it and with sufficient authority to avoid another Meredith. Templars have to be part of it too, of course

Palidane wrote...

Two, no blood magic. No way. Absolutely non-negotionable. We are trying to give mages freedom without turning the whole world into Tevinter.

While I agree in part, I think that battling blood magic without using ANY blood magic is a recipe for failure. Even now, or on the past, before the Kirkwall rebellion, there was some blood magic being used by the templars.  The apothecary full of mages blood vials IS BLOOD MAGIC. The seals keeping Coryntheus locked (Legacy) were made with blood magic. There are likely other instances where blood magic is used already because nothing else can be as efficient.

Bottom line, yes it is dangerous and should not be used but only a fool goes to war with an enemy without attempting to assert the enemy's strength, i.e. without knowing about the enemy's weapons and how they can be countered.

It would be wise to have few research places, manned by tranquils or very trusted mages, plus templars, in remote areas. Asunder describes just such a place, where the tranquil Pharamond conducted his research, "blessed" by the Divine, seekers, templars and by Wynne and other trustworthy mages.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 14 avril 2013 - 04:59 .

[Pheonix57]

You say that it is either mages or chantry, but at the end of DAII Varric mentions that the Templars are breaking away as well. So it could be that you can side with the mages, the chantry, the templars, or remain neutral.

[Zarathiel]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Palidane wrote...

 A Circle of mages run by mages, advised by mages, and policed by mages is a terrible terrible idea.

Never meant mages would be the only ones in the police force. Meant they have to be part of it and with sufficient authority to avoid another Meredith. Templars have to be part of it too, of course

Palidane wrote...

Two, no blood magic. No way. Absolutely non-negotionable. We are trying to give mages freedom without turning the whole world into Tevinter.

While I agree in part, I think that battling blood magic without using ANY blood magic is a recipe for failure. Even now, or on the past, before the Kirkwall rebellion, there was some blood magic being used by the templars.  The apothecary full of mages blood vials IS BLOOD MAGIC. The seals keeping Coryntheus locked (Legacy) were made with blood magic. There are likely other instances where blood magic is used already because nothing else can be as efficient.

Bottom line, yes it is dangerous and should not be used but only a fool goes to war with an enemy without attempting to assert the enemy's strength, i.e. without knowing about the enemy's weapons and how they can be countered.

It would be wise to have few research places, manned by tranquils or very trusted mages, plus templars, in remote areas. Asunder describes just such a place, where the tranquil Pharamond conducted his research, "blessed" by the Divine, seekers, templars and by Wynne and other trustworthy mages.

I personally consider the Rite of Tranquility to be the most abhorent thing the templars do to the mages. Any peace I negotiate in my personal canon playthrough will bar it from use for good. If that's not possible, then I'll side fully with the mages.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Palidane wrote...

Ok, a question to all the pro-mages out there: would you be willing to accept a reformed circle system?

For example, when a young mage is discovered, he is brought to the Circle for training. There's no choice in this, but parents can come and visit him. Templars are not allowed inside the tower without the express permission of the First Enchanter. On the other hand, mages are not allowed outside the tower without the Knight Commander's OK. Young mages get to be educated about their magic and learn to use it wisely. Students can take field trips and go places, they just have to have an escort. If they pass their harrowing and get the First Enchanter and Knight Commander's ok, they can move to wherever they want. They have to check in with the local chantry whenever they're travelling and have to have yearly inspections by local templars, but other than that are free to go about their business.

Would that be acceptable? Maleficars either fail the harrowing or get a Templar hit squad after them, and law abiding mages get to have normal lives. Common people don't have to worry about an abomination coming out of nowhere and burning the village down, and Templars aren't constantly at odds with the mages.

Any system that does not treat all inidividuals equally is untenable.

If mages and non-mages are both people, then they shouuld both be treated like people.

If you don't treat them the same, then they cannot help but see themselves as different.  And if they are different, why then shouldn't mages see themselves as superior?

[Renmiri1]

^

Good point Sylvius

[Palidane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Any system that does not treat all inidividuals equally is untenable.

If mages and non-mages are both people, then they shouuld both be treated like people.

If you don't treat them the same, then they cannot help but see themselves as different.  And if they are different, why then shouldn't mages see themselves as superior?

Normal people can't shoot fire and lightning out of their hands, or cause earthquakes, or summon demons from the Fade, or paralyze you with a wave of their hand. Mages damn well better see themselves as different, and learn to control their power and use it responsibly. They are not normal, and any mistake they make will have consequences an order of magnitude higher. They can feel free to feel superior, but if they try to assert their superiority they're gonna die on the business end of a templar's sword.

Freedom is great, but not when the world is on the line.

Modifié par Palidane, 15 avril 2013 - 12:25 .

[DominatorVic]

I think it's very realistic. Sometimes, people are forced to choose sides...or end up dying instead.

I also prefer to not choose sides when it's hard to see which is the greater evil, but...it made DA2's ending more harsh and intense that way...and believable.

As for DA3...you talk about it like you've played it, but we all know pretty much nothing about it! Make your opinions AFTER you've played the game! At least, don't assume things when it isn't even out yet.

[Medhia Nox]

Mages and Non-Mages are not "Both People".

Non-Mages are Mundane People

Mages are Magical People.

It's like comparing smaller toy dogs to wolves.  One of them simply cannot compete in nature.  One IS inferior to the other.

That's like asking the rich and successful to see themselves as equals to trailer trash.

Here's a reality check - they don't. No matter how enlightened it would be to do so.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 avril 2013 - 03:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Palidane wrote...

Freedom is great, but not when the world is on the line.

If you can't have freedom, do you particularly care about the fate of the world?

As long as you insist on having different rules govern mages, I maintain that there is no solution to this conflict that doesn't entail total victory by the mages or total defeat of the mages.  They will either be your slaves or your overlords, with no sustainable middle ground.

Only by treating everyone equally can you hope to have peace.  Will some mages run amok?  Yes.  But, I would argue, the optimal level of demonic possession is not zero, just as the optimal level of crime is not zero, and the optimal level of poverty is not zero.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Any system that does not treat all inidividuals equally is untenable.

If mages and non-mages are both people, then they shouuld both be treated like people.

If you don't treat them the same, then they cannot help but see themselves as different.  And if they are different, why then shouldn't mages see themselves as superior?

Isn't the proposal that mages and non-mages are the same untenable?

Certainly they are all people, but mages bare great power and great risk to those around them should they become possessed.  The rest of the population has nothing comparable.  When deciding how to treat them, how can anyone pretend they are the same?  The common people with treat them differently regardless of official policy.

Mages must be taught that their power does not make them superior to those around them, rather, it is a tool to be used for betterment, defence and not used recklessly.  That's why some sort of mandatory Circle system is required, for education rather than oppression.  I've yet to see a proposal I think optimal, but total freedom seems naive.  Just because you can't reduce the number of possessions to 0 doesn't mean you should do nothing at all.  I'd argue the means to achieve the optimal is not to do nothing.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 15 avril 2013 - 04:39 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Luckily the game won't revolve around mages and Templars... But regarding the OP may i suggest you play something different then? A video game will always force you into taking a side in a story, if you don't like any of the choices you are presented (if any even...), then that is simply just too bad.

[Althix]

Sylvius you live in a world where people are treated differently. be it social status or skin color or gender or sexual orientation.

so yes, as oppressed side you can choose between submission or becoming oppressor your self. there is no middle ground indeed.

however there is a difference between serial killer with a knife and serial killer with the power of the fade. levels of threat is different. and you can't even compare one with another.

[Palidane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you can't have freedom, do you particularly care about the fate of the world?

I think there are plenty of people who are "not free" but still would rather not watch the world burn.

As long as you insist on having different rules govern mages, I maintain that there is no solution to this conflict that doesn't entail total victory by the mages or total defeat of the mages.  They will either be your slaves or your overlords, with no sustainable middle ground.

And I maintain you are wrong. There is no reason to think our only options are Tevinter or the Qunari. A carefully managed Circle system with Templars to oversee the mages is a much better solution. It won't be perfect, sure, but we aren't compromising our future by accepting a serviceable resolution.

Only by treating everyone equally can you hope to have peace.  Will some mages run amok?  Yes.  But, I would argue, the optimal level of demonic possession is not zero, just as the optimal level of crime is not zero, and the optimal level of poverty is not zero.

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this, because from my point of view, zero is a very optimal number when it comes to poverty, crime, and maleficars.

Modifié par Palidane, 15 avril 2013 - 05:54 .

[Renmiri1]

Medhia Nox wrote...

That's like asking the rich and successful to see themselves as equals to trailer trash. 

Here's a reality check - they don't. No matter how enlightened it would be to do so.

Oh don't go there... 

Demi Moore is very rich but she was trailer trash once. Is not the same in Thedas, you can't be a mage just because you put some effort / slept with casting directors / etc... Lets leave it at that before this talk starts veering into RL racism.

[Althix]

see. submission.

key words: managed, oversee.

yeah well, if you say that mages must submit why just not put them down hard. they are in no position to negotiate anyway.

[Nole]

It will be something like kill the mages, kill the chantry, or make the peace.

[Stella-Arc]

I know I wanted a "neutral" option (but not a "screw you" and walk away type of neutral option) but if I had to choose....

...I guess the side that pisses me off less. We'll see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Isn't the proposal that mages and non-mages are the same untenable?

Certainly they are all people, but mages bare great power and great risk to those around them should they become possessed.  The rest of the population has nothing comparable.  When deciding how to treat them, how can anyone pretend they are the same?  The common people with treat them differently regardless of official policy.

Right, but is it a different-in-degree or a difference-in-kind?  Some people are smarter than other people.  Some people are stronger than other people.  Some people are left-handed, while others are not.  Some people can summon demons, while others cannot.

What sort of difference is magic?  If it's a difference-in-kind, then we have a problem.  As such, we need to treat it like a difference-in-degree.

Mages must be taught that their power does not make them superior to those around them, rather, it is a tool to be used for betterment, defence and not used recklessly.  That's why some sort of mandatory Circle system is required, for education rather than oppression.  I've yet to see a proposal I think optimal, but total freedom seems naive.  Just because you can't reduce the number of possessions to 0 doesn't mean you should do nothing at all.  I'd argue the means to achieve the optimal is not to do nothing.

I certainly wouldn't object to mandatory education, but I think non-mages should be subjected to it, as well.  Everyone can benefit from learning about magic and how it works.  Educating non-mages strikes me as a great way to prevent angry mobs wielding pitchforks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

secretsandlies wrote...

Sylvius you live in a world where people are treated differently. be it social status or skin color or gender or sexual orientation.

Individuals might treat then differently, but the rules shouldn't.

We can't control individual behaviour, but we can apply regulations universally, so everyone operates under the same rules.  Any systemic discrimination will only promote ill-will.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Palidane wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you can't have freedom, do you particularly care about the fate of the world?

I think there are plenty of people who are "not free" but still would rather not watch the world burn.

I didn't claim otherwise.  But I also don't see how to convince prisoners to care about the world if they don't already.

And I maintain you are wrong. There is no reason to think our only options are Tevinter or the Qunari. A carefully managed Circle system with Templars to oversee the mages is a much better solution. It won't be perfect, sure, but we aren't compromising our future by accepting a serviceable resolution.

Isn't that what led us here?  The mages feel oppressed, and they revolt.  It's was inevitable.

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this, because from my point of view, zero is a very optimal number when it comes to poverty, crime, and maleficars.

The cost of eliminating those last few cases is too great.  At some point, it is more beneficial to let those few instances of crime or poverty persist, rather than expend the tremendous resources that would be required to prevent every possible case.